On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> So in order to start a brand new bikeshed to paint on, have we even
>>> considered a very trivial workflow like letting the bugtracker
>>> actually *only* track our existing lists and archives. That would
>>> mean:
>>>
>>> * Mailing lists are *primary*, and the mailing list archives are
>>> *primary* (yes, this probably requires a fix to the archives, but that
>>> really is a different issue)
>>> * New bugs are added by simply saying "this messageid represents a
>>> thread that has this bug in it", and all the actual contents are
>>> pulled from the archives
>>> * On top of this, the bug just tracks metadata - such as open/closed
>>> more or less. It does *not* track the actual contents at all.
>>> * Bugs registered through the bugs form would of course automatically
>>> add such a messageid into the tracker.
>
>> That's pretty much exactly what I think would be most useful.
>
> I kinda wonder why the CF app doesn't work like that, actually.
> (Yeah, I know the poor thread linking in the archives is an issue.)
I thought this pretty much WAS how the CF app works, except that it's
for patches rather than bugs. Perhaps it could be extended to also
track bugs...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company